Originally posted by pelastration I believe I found one: He really supports the US weapon industry and insures that way 'extra' jobs !
I don't believe Gore would have done this better.
Some 'holes' in Florida made the difference.

Ok, so, if you are a millionaire arms dealer, you are better off thanks to Bush?

You guys aren't getting into the spirit of this thread...I want a Bush supporter to post something good that Bush has actually done for America. And, hopefully, it will be something that no one else would have done but him, some sort of bold initiative that he and his administration came up with. Something bold, and something that worked!

Well, Zero, What do you expect, you have posted this in a forum full of educated people... Educated people arrive at the same conclusions.

On the other hand, one could say that Bush has been given a ****ty hand to play with... IMO, these have been two pretty terrible years for a conservative leader. Ofcourse he can manipulate the general public, as any president can, and still attain the majority will. But he cannot manipulate the educated; Eventually, the educated will manipulate the general public against the conservative.

Originally posted by Mattius_ Well, Zero, What do you expect, you have posted this in a forum full of educated people... Educated people arrive at the same conclusions.

On the other hand, one could say that Bush has been given a ****ty hand to play with... IMO, these have been two pretty terrible years for a conservative leader. Ofcourse he can manipulate the general public, as any president can, and still attain the majority will. But he cannot manipulate the educated; Eventually, the educated will manipulate the general public against the conservative.

One could say that under Bush, the **** has slid down hill slower.

If that is a positive thing...

I was hoping that someone would make a supportable argument for re-electing Bush...I honestly don't see one, but obviously not everyone who votes for him is a slobbering moron.

I think good or bad are just perception definitions in relation to each one's goals, idea's or ethics.
For sure Bush or his administration have done a number of good things. But other may be called doubtful.
My concern is that a number of his decisions may be based on pure religious motives, pure fundamentalist believes (like being be chosen not only by the voters but also by God ... with the task to bring his will on Earth). On Internet I found indications on that but I don't know how solid these are.
So if Bush has not only a RED telephone direct with Putin but also a direct BLUE telephone line with God then we may have a problem.

We see a number of similar world leaders like that: the Iranese top, Sharon, the Pope, .... whom all 'believe' they represent a 'chosen group' and have an "un-doubtful right" to tell others how everything should be organized and settled.
History shows were extremes can lead: Stalin and Pol-Pot (pseudo religion), Hitler ( superior race), ...

There is something like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and I believe that is very important.
(http://www.un.org/rights/50/decla.htm [Broken])
Article 2.
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Fundamentalist standpoint's are in essence anti-democratic, and in a certain extend even racist if a certain group is give a natural supremacy given by God. They deny that other have similar rights as themselves.

When cultures (based on supremacy of race or religion) clash on the world map (cfr. Former Yugoslavia, Palestine, ...) we always see growth of extremism and the behavior which embeds aggression and motives for terrorism. We see always that action causes reaction.
Tolerance is the key to a better world.

So a question arises: Why does US (Bush) fears of the International Court of Justice (http://www.icj-cij.org/). Are there things we don't know? Did Clinton had the same problems with the ICJ? No.

Originally posted by pelastration
When cultures (based on supremacy of race or religion) clash on the world map (cfr. Former Yugoslavia, Palestine, ...) we always see growth of extremism and the behavior which embeds aggression and motives for terrorism. We see always that action causes reaction.
Tolerance is the key to a better world.

So a question arises: Why does US (Bush) fears of the International Court of Justice (http://www.icj-cij.org/). Are there things we don't know? Did Clinton had the same problems with the ICJ? No.

Ha ! Ha ! HA !
What a bunch of BS ! "International" court of "justice" ?!
Who the hell are you (not personally - in general) to tell
people what justice is ? When the last time you fought somebody
or lived hard lives or had to combat terrorists. Your pathetic
European Union thinks it can decide what justice is for
everyone on the planet ? What are you the smartest ? The most
just ? Where's all that "major experience" coming from, huh ?
You think you know what the normal way of life is, what
real principles are ? Not according to history. As for the
way you live - you're on burrowed time and the clock is
ticking loudly, enjoying your short lived supperiority over
the huge 3rd world and developing countries that will soon
leave your economy in the gutter as "hard-working" people
like you should expect. International Court of Justice ?
Ask a person from a 3rd world country wheather he would
like to spend the rest of his life in your air-conditioned,
cable-TV, sports active, 3 full meals a day jails and he'll
admit any crime you want him to. Did the sense of "Justice"
of west Europe get born (except the UK) before it lived
under Hitler or maybe during that time. How about
the French sense of "justice", their recent history
is saturated with it. So take your justice and your
"International" court and preach to some 3rd world country
that cares, at least while it has no choice and is being
payed for it.
Nothing personal btw, I was just adressing Belgium, the EU,
and the rest of your "international" self-appointed
"super-rightouss" fools.

Originally posted by pelastration I think good or bad are just perception definitions in relation to each one's goals, idea's or ethics.
For sure Bush or his administration have done a number of good things. But other may be called doubtful.
My concern is that a number of his decisions may be based on pure religious motives, pure fundamentalist believes (like being be chosen not only by the voters but also by God ... with the task to bring his will on Earth). On Internet I found indications on that but I don't know how solid these are.
So if Bush has not only a RED telephone direct with Putin but also a direct BLUE telephone line with God then we may have a problem.

We see a number of similar world leaders like that: the Iranese top, Sharon, the Pope, .... whom all 'believe' they represent a 'chosen group' and have an "un-doubtful right" to tell others how everything should be organized and settled.
History shows were extremes can lead: Stalin and Pol-Pot (pseudo religion), Hitler ( superior race), ...

There is something like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and I believe that is very important.
(http://www.un.org/rights/50/decla.htm [Broken])
Article 2.
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Fundamentalist standpoint's are in essence anti-democratic, and in a certain extend even racist if a certain group is give a natural supremacy given by God. They deny that other have similar rights as themselves.

When cultures (based on supremacy of race or religion) clash on the world map (cfr. Former Yugoslavia, Palestine, ...) we always see growth of extremism and the behavior which embeds aggression and motives for terrorism. We see always that action causes reaction.
Tolerance is the key to a better world.

So a question arises: Why does US (Bush) fears of the International Court of Justice (http://www.icj-cij.org/). Are there things we don't know? Did Clinton had the same problems with the ICJ? No.

This is the something that would be better served in a separate thread, not discussed here.

Originally posted by kat I can't remember a "good" president..not any of those I remember from the last 4 decades at least. No, wait, I take that back...Carter was a "good" president, but he was not a very effective one.

If there are no 'good' presidents, then at least we can ask if their policies have the promised outcomes, and whether those outcomes are a positive or negative for all of us.